In
2016 and 2017, Eastern Africa experienced a drought that most experts believe
to be linked to global climate change. Uganda, hit especially hard by dry
weather, also experienced unseasonal flooding, a further indication of the
abnormal weather patterns commonly attributed to climate change. These climate
incidents, coupled with Uganda’s history of violent conflict, provide an
opportunity for some researchers to suggest that climate change causes violence—a
relationship cited by many as one of the most dangerous consequences of our
changing climate. This relationship, however, is not so straightforward. According
to the author, arguments over whether or not climate change causes violence
draw our attention to problems of the future and distract from current
realities and the events that led up to them. They may also lead us to ignore a
cyclical pattern between the two occurrences—namely that conflict can contribute
to climate change just as profoundly as climate change can contribute to
violence.

The author challenges the tendency within scholarly research to discuss climate change with a sharp distinction between past and future, as well as between global and local, natural and social. When “disasters” are discussed in terms of climate change, the focus tends to be on future disasters, on the global causes and ramifications of disasters, and on their relationship with nature—even when nature is shaped by human activity. The author argues that focusing on one end of these paired distinctions to the exclusion of the other prevents us from understanding the complex ways in which climate change is experienced in the very parts of the world declared as the most vulnerable. Instead, what is required is a rethinking of the concept of climate disasters by starting not from the common “climate change causes conflict” framework but “from the lived experiences and the histories of climate change and disaster in specific parts of the world.” To help illustrate his argument, the author suggests using the concept of devastation to help reach beyond the limitations imposed by the future/past, global/local, and natural/social understanding of climate change and disaster. “Devastation” can better illuminate the events that are typically seen as comprising climate change and climate disaster.

Devastation: a term used in an attempt reframe
climate disasters as not just a byproduct of climate change but also the result
of longstanding forms of violence that exist within a complex environment
spanning past and future, global and local, natural and social.

The
author illustrates how political violence can be bound up with destructive
environmental change in ways that demonstrate the limitations of future/past,
global/local, and natural/social binary thinking by examining the case of drought
and violence in Uganda. The particular
climate hazard in the case of Uganda is drought and uncommon rainfall. This
hazard, the author argues, is produced locally by social forces just as much as
it is produced by global, natural forces. International investors have relentlessly advanced the political
economy of East Africa’s urbanization. Much of the land and energy
required for urbanization comes from the large-scale destruction of local
forests, which compounds environmental disasters like flooding, in turn
contributing to local and state violence. The drought in northern Uganda should
not be viewed as an isolated climate phenomenon but rather as part of a broader
context of war, where climate change can also be conceived of as a form of
violence—whether through decades of extractive, unequal capitalism or through
the vast amount of pollution generated directly by the military-industrial-complex.
Additionally, the author argues that conflict must viewed as a product of
future climate change or something that contributes to local vulnerability. Instead,
it should be seen as spanning both issues. Even though there might be
connections between climate change and an increasingly vulnerable population,
it is clear that the climate change disaster conversation privileges the
future, the global, and the natural but often disregards the need to take the
past, the local, and the social into account. Climate disaster response thus must
fully and justly engage with past and current forms of violence.

Contemporary
Relevance

This
article makes the case for being more cognizant of past and present structural conditions
to help us understand the climate-conflict relationship. We are experiencing a
planetary crisis, where climate change, environmental degradation, and resource
scarcity need to be viewed in connection with past and present structural
conditions. That entails the analysis of colonial history, global inequalities,
and resource extraction in our assessment of current conflicts. Today one can
speak of so-called “extractive imperialism,” where extractive industries pillage
resources in the Global South (where the effects of climate change are most
keenly felt) with little or no concern for the social and environmental costs.

When
considering the relationship between climate change and conflict, we must examine
violent conflicts within a global war system that is inherently destructive to
the environment. The advocacy organization World Beyond War has highlighted
a series of statistics regarding the environmental toll of violent conflict and
the defense industry:

• Military aircraft consume about
one quarter of the world’s jet fuel.

• The U.S. Department of Defense
uses more fuel per day than the country of Sweden.

• An F-16 fighter bomber consumes
almost twice as much fuel in one hour as a high-consuming U.S. motorist burns
in one year.

• The U.S. military uses enough
fuel in one year to run the entire mass transit system of the nation for 22
years.

• By one military estimate in 2003,
two-thirds of the U.S. Army’s fuel consumption occurred in vehicles that were
delivering fuel to the battlefield.

• The U.S. Department of Defense generates more chemical waste than the five largest chemical companies combined.

• The majority of the Superfund
sites in the U.S. are on military bases.

Talking Points

The
climate disaster conversation should start from “the lived experiences and the
histories of climate change and disaster in specific parts of the world.”

Uganda’s
recent drought is part of a broader context of environmental devastation and
violence, revealing how political violence is connected to destructive
environmental change in ways that highlight the limitations of future/past,
global/local, and natural/social thinking.

Climate
disaster response must fully and justly engage with past and current forms of
violence.

Practical
Implications

There
is an ongoing debate over the relationship between climate change and violent
conflict. Recently, however, many have argued that a rapidly changing climate,
warming temperatures, and the resulting decreased access to resources can
lead—and have led—to violence. In 2007, the United Nations Secretary General
labeled Sudan’s Darfur region the world’s “first climate change conflict.”
Since then, researchers from a variety of fields have suggested further ties
between climate and conflict, leading to important analysis and needed insight.
One study measured the conflict occurrence and local temperatures in
sub-Saharan Africa, finding an increase in conflict during warmer years. When climate
patterns were projected into 2030, their predictions translated into a 54%
increase in armed conflict on the continent.[1]
Armed conflicts have many contributing factors, however, and in most cases it
is impossible—and certainly not recommended—to talk about a single effect. As
this research points out, any examination of climate-related conflict must also
include analysis of global asymmetries based upon colonial histories,
extractive industries, and unequal trade relationships.

02

03

Social

Testimonials

Erica Chenoweth, Ph.D.

The field of peace science has long suffered from a needless disconnect between current scholarship and relevant practice. The Peace Science Digest serves as a vital bridge. By regularly communicating cutting-edge peace research to a general audience, this publication promises to advance contemporary practice of peace and nonviolent action. I don’t know of any other outlet that has developed such an efficient forum for distilling the key insights from the latest scholarly innovations for anyone who wants to know more about this crucial subject. I won’t miss an issue.

-Erica Chenoweth: Professor, Associate Dean for Research at the Josef Korbel School of International Studies at the University of Denver

David Cortright, Ph.D.

The Peace Science Digest is a valuable tool for translating scholarly research into practical conclusions in support of evidence-based approaches to preventing armed conflict.

-David Cortright: Director of Policy Studies at the Kroc Institute of International Peace Studies at the University of Notre Dame

Ambassador John W. McDonald, ret.

This Magazine is where the academic field and the practitioners meet. It is the ideal source for the Talkers, the Writers and the Doers who need to inform and educate themselves about the fast growing field of Peace Science for War Prevention Initiatives!

Kelly Cambell

As a longtime peace activist, I’ve grown weary of the mainstream perception that peace is for dreamers. That’s why the Peace Science Digest is such as useful tool; it gives me easy access to the data and the science to make the case for peacebuilding and war prevention as both practical and possible. This is a wonderful new resource for all who seek peaceful solutions in the real world.

Michael Nagler

We must welcome the expansion of peace awareness into any and every area of our lives, in most of which it must supplant the domination of war and violence long established there. The long-overdue and much appreciated Digest is filling an important niche in that peace invasion. No longer will anyone be able to deny that peace is a science that can be studied and practiced.

-Michael Nagler: Founder and President, Metta Center for Nonviolence

Aubrey Fox

The Peace Science Digest is the right approach to an ever-present challenge: how do you get cutting-edge peace research that is often hidden in hard-to-access academic journals into the hands of a broader audience? With its attractive on-line format, easy to digest graphics and useful short summaries, the Peace Science Digest is a critically important tool for anyone who cares about peace as well as a delight to read.

Joseph Bock, Ph.D.

How many times are we asked about the effectiveness of alternatives to violent conflict? Reading Peace Science Digest offers a quick read on some of the best research focused on that important question. It offers talking points and summarizes practical implications. Readers are provided with clear, accessible explanations of theories and key concepts. It is a valuable resource for policy-makers, activists and scholars. It is a major step in filling the gap between research findings and application.

-Joseph Bock: International Conflict Management Program Associate Professor of International Conflict Management, Kennesaw State University

Eric Stoner

The distillation of the latest academic studies offered by the Peace Science Digest is not only an invaluable time-saving resource for scholars and policymakers concerned with preventing the next war, but for journalists and organizers on the front lines, who can put their findings to good use as they struggle to hold the powerful accountable and to build a more just and peaceful world.

-Eric Stoner: Co-founder and Editor, Waging Nonviolence

Mark Freeman

The Peace Science Digest is a major contribution to the peace and security field. It makes complex issues more understandable, enabling professional outfits like ours to be more effective in our global work. The Digest underscores that preventing war is about more than good intentions or power; it is also about transferable knowledge and science.

Maria J. Stephan, Ph.D.

The Digest is smartly organized, engaging, and provides a nice synthesis of key research on conflict, war, and peace with practical and policy relevance. The journal’s emphasis on “contemporary relevance”, “talking points” and “practical implications” is a breath of fresh air for those of us trying to bridge the academic-policy-practitioner divides. Highly recommended reading.

-Maria J. Stephan: Senior Advisor, United States Institute of Peace

David Swanson

Peace Science Digest is an invaluable tool for advocates for peace, as much as for educators. In it one quickly finds the talking points needed to persuade others, and the research to back those points up.